The Criterion Collection

[hainesdogg]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I wonder if Janus Contemporaries will be a separate announcement, or they simply won't be coming till November at the earliest now.

I assume it would be similar to their "big title" November announcements a separate announcement. Similar to how they handled Wall-E or any boxset.

I think a November launch makes sense with 1 to 3 titles in the initial launch.


There are two things that are making me take pause. One is that Jean Estuache set, that's almost given at this point, and that possible Catherine Breillat (that may not be Criterion)

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Interestingly, both designed by the same artist, which you can tell by looking at them, as they both share a similar carnival/festive theme with their designs.



As for The Others, there's no HDR on that, likely the director's choice, as he supervised the release. It'll no doubt be a huge improvement over any existing release to date based on the few screenshots on Criterion's page.

Thanks.

It would be interesting to see why the director Amenábar decided not to use HDR for this 4k release. There are many dark scenes and I hope 4K transfer will give it justice. The movie is a great watch for first time viewers.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by JasonMichael

I hadn't heard about Waters wanting to release an edited version. What does he want cut?

Basically what has been said publicly was he wants the entire film recut to fit his vision for what The Wall should’ve looked like in 1982. No more specifics were ever released, but I think that comes down to no one wants to give him the time of day. Yes he’s a great musician and the subject of many enjoyable puff pieces, but he’s also very arrogant and full of himself.

Legally speaking, Waters is Pink Floyd (he owns the name, the masters, the movie itself, and receives the lion’s share of the profits from PF sales and streams), and he used that to his advantage in 1998. MGM/UA dropped a Dolby Digital laserdisc of PFTW and began working on a DTS one. One of the many draws to that disc was a new transfer, a remastered soundtrack, and a commentary with director Alan Parker. Pink Floyd (Waters) sued MGM/UA over the disc, claiming that they didn’t have PF’s (Waters) permission to release the disc that the PQ and AQ wasn’t on par with PF’s (Waters) standards, and that Parker’s commentary damaged PF’s (Waters) brand. (PF had what amounts to the music equivalent of the “director’s final approval” clause going back to the 70s, and now Waters was going to use it to throw his weight around.) So the DD disc was recalled, most copies were destroyed, and the DTS disc never made it past the planning stages.

In 1999 a new remaster and a new 5.1 came out from CMV, and Parker’s commentary was replaced with...wait for it...a Roger Waters commentary. Pink Floyd - Waters - approved of this release.

And that was just one incident. He’s been doing this shit for over 40 years now, and it’s one of the many reasons the band imploded.

Now he’s claiming that the film was not at all what the band agreed on (not true) and that the two choices are a Waters-helmed recut of the movie, or nothing at all. Two cuts in the same box isn’t an option. It’s his way or the highway.

The CMV DVD is still in print though.

[Taylor3978]

I remember at a midnight show, a trailer for The Wall came on.

Someone behind me sighed and said, Your father died, get over it.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Interestingly, both designed by the same artist, which you can tell by looking at them, as they both share a similar carnival/festive theme with their designs.



As for The Others, there's no HDR on that, likely the director's choice, as he supervised the release. It'll no doubt be a huge improvement over any existing release to date based on the few screenshots on Criterion's page.

Regarding the covers, it becomes more obvious that they’re the same artist when you look inside the set at the three individual covers, which ARE going to be part of this set. The Freaks cover is getting a lot of hate already, but I like it. Honestly of all three covers plus the TBSS cover I like the Freaks one the most.

Regarding the HDR/DV, I got a controversial statement here (not trolling), but that’s not make-or-break for me. They didn’t have HDR or DV in 2001, they didn’t have it in the 90s or 80s or 70s, so is it really necessary now? It’s not unnecessary per se, but it’s definitely not 100% necessary on all 4Ks. Besides, if the picture looks perfect at 4K SDR, why change it? Why fix what’s not broken?

Just my two cents.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by Taylor3978

I remember at a midnight show, a trailer for The Wall came on.

Someone behind me sighed and said, Your father died, get over it.

This made my day

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Gambit1138

Personally hoping for The Handmaiden and Suspiria sooner rather than later.

Do you mean the recent Suspiria? A Criterion would be great if it has bonus documentaries about the creative process.

The original Suspiria has one of the best 4k transfers by Synapse (I cannot remember another 4k coming close to the quality of the image).

Jessica Harper

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I wonder if Janus Contemporaries will be a separate announcement, or they simply won't be coming till November at the earliest now.

I was wondering the same thing, and how many titles would be announced initially.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

Regarding the covers, it becomes more obvious that they’re the same artist when you look inside the set at the three individual covers, which ARE going to be part of this set.

You keep repeating this, but they are not going to be part of the set.

The artist himself even says the individual covers were for the website only:

CriterionCollection has announced their OCTOBER 2023 titles and I had a blast getting lost at the circus designing the complete packaging for their “TOD BROWNING’s Sideshow Shockers” collector’s box set that includes: “FREAKS” (1932), “The Unknown” (1927), and “The Mystic” (1925). ��️��

This is just the slipcase cover and there’s much more to be revealed inside the package, of course, including a *fabulous* essay by Farran Smith Nehme (selfstyledsiren)! ������

➡️ Swipe to see the faux covers I designed for web use for the individual titles.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cu0AeQexMuF/?img_index=4

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by Quake1028

NONE of these other movies do anything for you?

Citizen Kane
The Red Shoes
The Virgin Suicides
Le Cercle Rouge
After Hours
Breathless
The Seventh Seal
The Rules of the Game
Wings of Desire
Mildred Pierce
Malcolm X
WALL-E
Night of the Living Dead
In The Mood For Love
Blow Out
Raging Bull
For All Mankind
Double Indemnity
Menace II Society

Wow, don't recall seeing all those 4K titles at B&N when I last went. Any movie in particular you can recommend? I already saw Wall-E and Citizen Kane and they are not my cup of tea, so those two are out of the question.

[JasonMichael]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

Basically what has been said publicly was he wants the entire film recut to fit his vision for what The Wall should’ve looked like in 1982. No more specifics were ever released, but I think that comes down to no one wants to give him the time of day. Yes he’s a great musician and the subject of many enjoyable puff pieces, but he’s also very arrogant and full of himself.

Legally speaking, Waters is Pink Floyd (he owns the name, the masters, the movie itself, and receives the lion’s share of the profits from PF sales and streams), and he used that to his advantage in 1998. MGM/UA dropped a Dolby Digital laserdisc of PFTW and began working on a DTS one. One of the many draws to that disc was a new transfer, a remastered soundtrack, and a commentary with director Alan Parker. Pink Floyd (Waters) sued MGM/UA over the disc, claiming that they didn’t have PF’s (Waters) permission to release the disc that the PQ and AQ wasn’t on par with PF’s (Waters) standards, and that Parker’s commentary damaged PF’s (Waters) brand. (PF had what amounts to the music equivalent of the “director’s final approval” clause going back to the 70s, and now Waters was going to use it to throw his weight around.) So the DD disc was recalled, most copies were destroyed, and the DTS disc never made it past the planning stages.

In 1999 a new remaster and a new 5.1 came out from CMV, and Parker’s commentary was replaced with...wait for it...a Roger Waters commentary. Pink Floyd - Waters - approved of this release.

And that was just one incident. He’s been doing this shit for over 40 years now, and it’s one of the many reasons the band imploded.

Now he’s claiming that the film was not at all what the band agreed on (not true) and that the two choices are a Waters-helmed recut of the movie, or nothing at all. Two cuts in the same box isn’t an option. It’s his way or the highway.

The CMV DVD is still in print though.

Thanks, I hadn't heard that he wants to recut the film. Not surprising, though. He's a tool.
Just a correction- Waters does not own the Pink Floyd name, but during many of the lawsuits going back and forth between Waters and Gilmour/Mason, Waters agreed to let the other two use the Floyd name to tour if he was given ownership of The Wall, and all the stageshow and touring rights for that album. PF can still do a few songs live, but Waters is the only one who can do the whole album. Any other decisions made about other albums in the catalogue that Waters was involved with is still controlled by Gilmour, Mason and Waters.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by JasonMichael

Thanks, I hadn't heard that he wants to recut the film. Not surprising, though. He's a tool.
Just a correction- Waters does not own the Pink Floyd name, but during many of the lawsuits going back and forth between Waters and Gilmour/Mason, Waters agreed to let the other two use the Floyd name to tour if he was given ownership of The Wall, and all the stageshow and touring rights for that album. PF can still do a few songs live, but Waters is the only one who can do the whole album. Any other decisions made about other albums in the catalogue that Waters was involved with is still controlled by Gilmour, Mason and Waters.

Even messier than I thought. Thanks for the info. Not surprising because of who he is.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

You keep repeating this, but they are not going to be part of the set.

The artist himself even says the individual covers were for the website only:

If only I would've read the bold one more time...

[speedracer5]

Originally Posted by Stewynewy

As MifuneFan mention, tread lightly when looking into it, as the film really hinges on a certain surprise that is better left unspoiled.

Don't Look Now is in my top 10 films of all time. For me it captures a constant state of dread that no other film has replicated for me. It feels like something bad is going to happen but you don't quite know what and when. This in combination with the beautiful scenery of Venice, it's slower pace, and unconventional editing keep your eyes glued to the screen (well for me at least). Also, Pino Donaggio's score is simply magnificent, and is one of the great film soundtracks of all time.

I highly recommend it, but maybe rent it before buying the Criterion. It is a slow film and not too many things happen in it when compared to other horror films (I don't even know if I can call it "horror"), so it isn't for everyone.

Thank you. I see that my library has the 2015 Criterion Blu Ray. I may borrow that to see what the film is all about.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Interestingly, both designed by the same artist, which you can tell by looking at them, as they both share a similar carnival/festive theme with their designs.



As for The Others, there's no HDR on that, likely the director's choice, as he supervised the release. It'll no doubt be a huge improvement over any existing release to date based on the few screenshots on Criterion's page.

I’m guessing the same artist was also responsible for Nightmare Alley.

[Rayjg]

I spent a good half hour trying to figure out which John Waters film PFTW stood for

[ihaveblink]

Originally Posted by Gunsnroses092789

Lost Highway is a mixed bag. It used to be a favorite (I even saw it in theaters at age 8), but in the recent years, I don't feel like it's aged particularly well for me. It's sometimes crazy and weird for the sake of being crazy and weird. It also is pretty male gaze-y. But nevertheless, it's an interesting film and one of my favorite of Lynch's (who I admit is not a favorite filmmaker of mine).

I don't really get the "male gaze" critique in this or any medium. My g/f watched Lost Highway and loved seeing PA nude. So what exactly does this mean? Only straight men want to see nude women? I'm not trying to start a whole thing by asking this but I just don't get the whole "male gaze" critique.

[jshaide]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

I spent a good half hour trying to figure out which John Waters film PFTW stood for

Same!

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Rayjg

I spent a good half hour trying to figure out which John Waters film PFTW stood for

[Show spoiler]

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by ihaveblink

I don't really get the "male gaze" critique in this or any medium. My g/f watched Lost Highway and loved seeing PA nude. So what exactly does this mean? Only straight men want to see nude women? I'm not trying to start a whole thing by asking this but I just don't get the whole "male gaze" critique.

My limited understanding is that there's different ways of filming a character like hers. It's most definitely not impossible to have a nude scene that wouldn't be described that way. But, generally if the camera is really focusing on her sexy parts and seems designed to titillate the audience, that's considered "the male gaze." Especially if the character is just sort of laying around passively instead of actually doing anything in the scene, or if the camera is meant to represent a male character looking at her from a position of power (ex POV shots, or over the shoulder). I mean, there's obviously gray area here, and it's not like all stuff with "the male gaze" is objectively negative or anything. And it can be pretty easy to subvert it, like in say, a scene like the infamous interrogation scene in Basic Instinct, where yes, we're getting a look at her naughty bits, yes we're looking from the perspective of men drooling over her, but she has all the power in the scene.

For one of the archetypal examples of "the male gaze" try watching a video about how Michael Bay filmed Megan Fox in the first two transformers movies. She's all oiled up, the camera REALLY gets in tight and gives long shots of her butt, the only point of the shots is to drool over her body and establish how sexy she appears to Shia Lebouf.

For another obvious example from trashy mainstream movies, the difference between the way the camera treats Gal Gadot in Justice League vs in the movie Wonder Woman. The former makes sure the camera goes up her skirt during action scenes, always oils her up, likes to make her outfit look sexier and more revealing, basically making sure that viewers are titillated. While in Wonder Woman, she has the exact same outfit and is doing much of the same stuff, but the shots are framed and presented in a way that is done for the action instead of the sexuality.